Next Article in Journal
The Chemical Characterisation of the Maritime Pine Bark Cultivated in Northern Portugal
Next Article in Special Issue
Can a Forest Tree Species Progeny Trial Serve as an Ex Situ Collection? A Case Study on Alnus glutinosa
Previous Article in Journal
The Fungus Beauveria bassiana Alters Amounts of Sterols, Fatty Acids, and Hydroxycinnamic Acids in Potato Solanum tuberosum
Previous Article in Special Issue
Italian Ryegrass as a Forage Crop for the Baltics: Opportunities and Challenges in Light of Climate Change
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 23
10.3390/plants12233939
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Growing of Phalaroides arundinacea L. and Bromopsis inermis Leyss for Biofuel Using Sewage Sludge Compost as a Fertilizer

by
Jelena Ankuda
*,
Eugenija Bakšienė
and
Almantas Ražukas
Vokė Branch, Institute of Agriculture, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Žalioji Sq. 2, LT-02232 Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(23), 3939; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12233939
Submission received: 18 September 2023 / Revised: 17 November 2023 / Accepted: 18 November 2023 / Published: 22 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Collection Selected Papers from Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bromopsis inermis and Phalaroides arundinacea are increasingly grown not only for feed but also for other purposes, such as obtaining energy. Composting sewage sludge and using such compost to fertilize various plants is also becoming more popular. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate how the fertilization of the mentioned plants with sewage sludge compost (SSC) affects the biomass yield and biomass quality of these plants. It was also important to determine whether fertilization with SSC is possible in low-yielding soils of light texture without harming these soils There are no similar studies in Lithuania, and there are very few in Europe and the world. It was found that investigated grasses formed a small biomass DM yield (6.6 t/ha within three years). The biomass of B. inermis and Ph. arundinacea had a very high ash content and concentrations of nitrogen and potassium. This greatly reduced the quality of the biomass of these grasses as a solid biofuel. SSC performed poorly as a fertilizer. Fertilization with 125 t/ha SSC significantly increased the total biomass yield of Ph. arundinacea only. At the same time, using SSC as a fertilizer significantly increased the concentration of Cu, Zn, and Cd in the soil.

1. Introduction

Currently, a strong interest in renewable energy has become a worldwide tendency [1,2,3,4]. This concerns solar, wind, geothermal, water, and biomass energies [2,4]. These energy resources are environmentally friendly and are the main instruments for mitigating climate change [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. The European Union has stressed the importance of biomass use, proposing a variety of opportunities for development and promoting the use of plant biomass as an energy source as intensively and as widely as possible. In Lithuania, the use of renewable energy sources, on the basis of the regulating legal instruments, is regarded as one of the priority areas of energy development [8].
Energy plants are herbaceous plants and short-rotation energy forests that are grown for their biomass to be used for biofuels, electricity, and thermal energy production [9]. One of the ways to obtain energy from plants is to burn them. It is considered that during plant combustion the release of CO2 is equal to that used by plants for photosynthesis [4,10,11]. Consequently, burning the biomass of energy plants is considered an environmentally friendly way of obtaining energy that does not contribute to global climate change. However, not all plant biomass is cost-effective if used as a solid biofuel. The studies that have intended to identify the plants that produce more energy while burning and that cause less damage to boilers are particularly relevant [12,13,14,15]. Additionally, almost a quarter of all Lithuanian total farmland area is unproductive and of low productivity [16,17]. In such lands, traditional farming is economically useless, and growing energy plants could be a good alternative. In addition, growing perennial energy crops could potentially enrich barren soils with organic carbon and reduce soil degradation, erosion, and the leaching of nutrients from the soil [18,19]. All over the world, including in Lithuania, scientists have conducted various studies in order to determine which energy plants outperform others, and which growing conditions are the best for growing biomass suitable for obtaining energy. Some authors claim that short-rotation energy forests (willows (Salix spp.), poplars (Populus spp.), and others) are the most valuable energy plants because they form a large biomass dry matter (DM) yield and can grow for a very long time in one place [20,21,22]. However, cutting down short-rotation energy forests is problematic and costly. Perennial herbaceous plants can also be grown for a long time in one place. For example, plants of the genus Miscanthus can produce high yields for up to 15–20 years while growing in the same place [23,24] and Bromopsis inermis L. can grow in one place for up to 30–40 years [25,26]. In addition, the biomass of some perennial grass species can be cut several times during the growing season. Grass biomass is much easier and cheaper to cut than the biomass of short-rotation energy forests. Studies on the cultivation of Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. are very relevant because the demand for these plants is increasing. These grasses are increasingly grown not only for fodder but also for other purposes, such as obtaining energy (for biogas production, solid biofuel, etc.). Bromopsis inermis Leyss. variety ‘Galinda’ and Phalaroides arundinacea L. variety ‘Alaušas’ were bred in the Vokė branch of the Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture (Vokė Branch of the Institute of Agriculture of the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (LAMMC) at this moment) (authors—J. Šedys [25,27,28] and R. Vaičiulytė [25]) and are best adapted to the light soils and climatic conditions of this area of Lithuania. The plants of these varieties are characterized by a high biomass DM yield.
Currently, along with the increase in population around the world, the world’s food and energy needs are increasing [29,30]. Therefore, the aim is to obtain a higher yield of various plants. As a result, the use of mineral fertilizers has increased. However, too intensive use of mineral fertilizers can harm the soil. Chemical elements (nitrogen, phosphorus, and others) can leach into groundwater and contaminate it and surface waters [30]. Finally, mineral fertilizers are expensive.
Sewage sludge disposal is an urgent issue at the moment [31]. Improperly handled or neglected sewage sludge poses a threat to the environment and human health. One of the ways to dispose of it, while simultaneously obtaining economic benefits, is composting and using it for the fertilization of energy plants [32,33,34]. In European countries, the fertilization of plants with sewage sludge and its compost is being studied [35,36,37]. Sludge and compost are rich in various elements (N, P, K, Ca, and Mg) and bases that are beneficial to plants; they are also characterized by a neutral pH, which increases the biological activity of soil and humus content and reduces soil bulk density and acidity [38,39,40]. However, sewage sludge compost, as well as sewage sludge, contains high concentrations of heavy metals; therefore, it is especially important to adjust fertilization so that the heavy metals do not adversely affect the environment, including the soil properties and cultivated plants. It has also not been studied at all whether the heavy metals are intensively absorbed from the soil by B. inermis and Ph. arundinacea. This would be useful to determine in order to find out the possibilities of using these grasses for cleaning heavy metals from the soil because their concentrations would inevitably increase when sewage sludge compost is used as a fertilizer. Furthermore, energy plants fertilized with sewage sludge compost can accumulate particularly high amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, chlorine, and other elements in their biomass. It is known that the overall emission rate for biofuel-fired boilers strongly depends not only on the boilers and their control but also on the quality of fuel. For example, the nitrogen and chlorine contents in biomass can be reduced by agrotechnical measures and optimization of plant fertilization [10].
Thus, during this study, it was determined whether it is possible to grow the above-mentioned grasses by fertilizing with sewage sludge compost in low-yielding soils of a light texture without harming nature (the soil) and the quality of the grasses’ biomass as solid biofuel. Also, the potential for using B. inermis and Ph. arundinacea to clear the soil of heavy metals was explored. There are no similar studies in Lithuania, and there are very few in Europe and the world.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Biomass Dry Matter (DM) Yield of Perennial Herbaceous Plants

As mentioned earlier, Bromopsis inermis Leyss. variety ‘Galinda’ and Phalaroides arundinacea L. variety ‘Alaušas’ are best adapted to the light soils and climatic conditions of southeastern Lithuania. The varieties are characterized by a high yield of green mass, dry matter, and seeds. According to the literature data, B. inermis variety ‘Galinda’ can produce up to 14.2 t/ha of biomass DM yield [25,41]. However, when the grass is cut only once per season, the dry matter yield of B. inermis biomass reaches 5–6 t/ha [42]. If the biomass of Ph. arundinacea variety ‘Alaušas’ is cut up to twice per season, a biomass yield of 5.0–15.9 t/ha DM can be obtained [24,42,43]. In the described experiment, grasses were cut once per season. Perhaps, because of this, lower yields of DM biomass from these plants were determined. (Table 1). Also, the low-yielding, light-textured soils of the experiment (sandy loam Haplic Luvisol (LVha)) negatively affected the yield. Although the plants studied are relatively tolerant to this soil, the biomass DM yield of B. inermis was on average 0.83–7.19 t/ha and of Ph. arundinacea—0.40–8.75 t/ha.
Ph. arundinacea and B. inermis did not produce a significant biomass yield in the first year of cultivation. Therefore, the first year’s biomass yield was not included in the biomass yield accounting. In the following years, the root system of the grasses developed even more, the plants grew stronger, and each year produced a larger biomass DM yield. Even in unfertilized fields, the biomass DM yield of Ph. arundinacea and B. inermis increased every year (Table 1).
The variance analysis of the 2015 biomass DM yield of the investigated perennial grasses revealed a significant impact of factor A (species of plant), factor B (fertilization), and the interaction of the A and B factors (Table 1). The variance analysis of the 2016 grasses biomass DM yield revealed a significant impact of only factor B (fertilization), and 2017—a significant impact of factor A (species of plant) and factor B (fertilization) (Table 1).
In 2015, B. inermis had a significantly higher biomass DM yield (1.29 t/ha on average) than Ph. arundinacea (on average 0.67 t/ha) (Table 1). When evaluating the interaction of the A (species of plant) and B (fertilization) factors, it was found that, in 2015, the biomass yield of DM of unfertilized and fertilized B. inermis was significantly higher than the biomass yield of DM of unfertilized and fertilized Ph. arundinacea (p < 0.05). B. inermis fertilized with mineral fertilizers had the highest biomass DM yield in 2015 (p < 0.01). In 2016, no significant difference was found between the yields of the investigated grasses. The biomass yield of DM was similar for both herbaceous plants. However, in 2017, Ph. arundinacea had a significantly higher DM biomass yield (average 3.67 t/ha) than B. inermis (average 2.91 t/ha). In other words, in the first harvest year (2015), B. inermis formed a higher biomass DM yield, but in the third harvest year, it was overtaken by Ph. arundinacea. The total biomass yield of DM in 2015, 2016, and 2017 for Ph. arundinacea and B. inermis was similar (on average 6.64 and 6.59 t/ha, respectively).
It was found that mineral fertilizers had a significant positive influence on the DM biomass yield of both studied perennial grass species in all harvest years (p < 0.05) (Table 1). However, the effect of sewage sludge compost was not so pronounced. Only the highest rate of SSC fertilization (125 t/ha) usually significantly increased the yield of grass biomass (p < 0.05). Analysis of the interaction between factors A (species of plant) and B (fertilization) showed that, in 2015 and 2017, fertilization with SSC did not significantly increase the biomass DM yield of either B. inermis or Ph. arundinacea (p > 0.05). In 2016, fertilization with 125 t/ha SSC significantly increased the biomass DM yield of both B. inermis and Ph. arundinacea (p < 0.05). When evaluating the interaction of the A and B factors, it was also found that fertilization with 125 t/ha SSC significantly increased the total biomass DM yield of Ph. arundinacea (p < 0.05) only (Table 1).

2.2. Plant Biomass Quality Parameters Which Determine Their Quality as a Solid Biofuel

The water content of energy plant biomass is a very important indicator that determines the quality of biomass as a solid biofuel. It, like other indicators of biomass quality, was evaluated in the fourth year of cultivation, at the end of the experiment in 2017. The lower the water content (%), the better the quality of the biomass, because less energy and costs are needed to dry such biofuel. In addition, the storage of moist fuel creates problems with its safety since moist biofuels can be spoiled by pathogens.
During the research, the variance analysis of the water content of grass biomass revealed a significant impact of factor A (species of plant) and the interaction of the A and B (fertilization) factors. The water content in the biomass of Ph. arundinacea in 2017 was significantly lower (41.8–44.7%) than in the biomass of B. inermis (43.4–51.5%) (p < 0.05) (Figure 1). Factor B (fertilization) had no significant influence on the water content of the herbaceous plant biomass (p > 0.05). When evaluating the interaction of the A (species of plant) and B (fertilization) factors, it was found that the water content of the biomass of unfertilized B. inermis was significantly higher than that fertilized with mineral fertilizers, or 25, 75, and 125 t/ha SSC (p < 0.05). The use of fertilizers did not significantly affect the water content of the Ph. arundinacea biomass (p > 0.05).
The calorific value (MJ/kg) is the most important indicator describing the quality of energy plant biomass as a solid biofuel. The variance analysis of the calorific value of the plant biomass revealed a significant impact of factor A (species of plant); the calorific value of B. inermis biomass (19.02 MJ/kg) was significantly higher than that of Ph. arundinacea (18.67 MJ/kg) (p < 0.05). The calorific value of the investigated grasses was not significantly dependent on fertilization with SSC (Figure 1).
The amount of nitrogen (N) in the biomass of energy plants is an important indicator in terms of emissions [44]. Burning plants releases NOx into the atmosphere. The amount of nitrogen emissions depends not only on the combustion temperature, the time spent in the high-temperature zone, and the oxygen concentration [45], but also on the N concentration in the fuel. The less nitrogen there is in the biomass of energy plants, the less the environment is polluted during combustion. The concentration of nitrogen in the biomass may depend on the variety or species of plants, as well as the type of fertilizer and the rate of application of fertilizers.
Potassium is one of the main components that determines the melting point of ash and the scale of surfaces. Potassium is also the main element forming volatile ash, which comes out with smoke in the form of aerosols during combustion. High concentrations of potassium in the biomass of energy plants promote the formation of fine ash, and the formation of KCl causes slagging problems. However, it is believed that K can be removed from biofuel by washing it with water or slightly acidic solutions [46].
The variance analysis of biomass nitrogen (N) concentrations and potassium (K) concentrations also revealed a significant impact of factor A (species of plant) only (Figure 1). The B. inermis biomass contained significantly more nitrogen (1.46–1.61%) than the Ph. arundinacea biomass (1.33–1.44%) (p < 0.05). (Figure 1). Also, the B. inermis biomass contained significantly more potassium (1.320–1.525%) than the Ph. arundinacea biomass (0.995–1.080%) (p < 0.05) (Figure 1). Such high concentrations of N and K in the biomass of the investigated grasses greatly reduce the quality of their biomass as a solid biofuel. The concentrations of nitrogen and potassium in the biomass of the studied grasses were not significantly dependent on fertilization with SSC (p > 0.05) (Figure 1). However, Antonkiewicz et al. [33] determined that the N and K concentrations in the biomass of the Ph. arudinacea ‘Bamse’ cultivar significantly increased after fertilizing this grass with municipal sewage sludge.
The sulfur concentration in plant biomass is a very important indicator of biofuel quality in terms of emissions. During biomass burning, SO2 is released [44,46], and the concentration of SO2 in combustion products depends on the sulfur content of the burning material [44,45]. In addition, during biomass burning, SO3 can be released. When SO3 combines with water (H2O), sulfuric acid (H2SO4) can be formed [44,45]. The lower the sulfur content in energy plants, the less sulfuric acid (H2SO4) can be produced. This means that corrosion will affect boilers less and they will last longer.
Phosphorus (P) is one of the main components that determines the melting point of energy plant ash and the scale of surfaces. The less it is present in the biomass, the better the quality of the biomass. Buinevicius [46] argued that phosphorus can be effectively removed by washing the fuel with water.
The variance analysis of sulfur (S) and phosphorus (P) concentrations in the biomass of herbaceous plants revealed a significant impact of only factor A (species of plant). The Ph. arundinacea biomass contained significantly more sulfur (0.173–0.191%) and phosphorus (0.261–0.313%) than the B. inermis biomass (0.119–0.143% and 0.181–0.186%, respectively) (p < 0.05) (Figure 1). The concentrations of these parameters in the biomass of the investigated grasses were not significantly dependent on fertilization with SSC (p > 0.05).
Ash content is another very important quality indicator of plant biomass as a solid biofuel. The less ash produced in the process of burning energy plants, the longer the boilers’ service life can be. Also, the emission of solid particles increases during the combustion process. Carbon, along with hydrogen and sulfur, are the combustible elements that make up solid biofuels [47].
The ash content of the investigated plant biomasses and carbon (C) concentrations in plant biomasses were not significantly dependent on either the plant species or fertilization with SSC. (p > 0.05) The average ash content of the B. inermis biomass was 5.27–6.09% (Figure 1) and the Ph. arundinacea biomass ash content was on average 5.14–5.66%. Such ash content is very high and not very suitable for solid biofuel. The carbon (C) concentration in the B. inermis biomass was on average 46.65–47.55% and in the Ph. arundinacea biomass—45.65–46.35% (Figure 1).

2.3. Concentration of Heavy Metals in Plant Biomass, mg/kg

2.3.1. Zinc (Zn) Concentration in Plant Biomass, mg/kg

Studies of the heavy metal concentrations in the biomass of energy plants are very important in order to find out which energy plants absorb the most of them. Such energy plants could be used to clean the soil from heavy metals. This is especially relevant when fertilizing plants with sewage sludge compost (SSC).
Zinc (Zn) is one of the most easily absorbed heavy metals by plants. On average, the above-ground biomass of beans and cereals can contain 15–60 mg/kg of this element [48]. In the absence of zinc, the normal growth and development of plants is disrupted and the chlorosis of plants may occur [49]. Plants absorb zinc contained in the soil solution, exchange cations, and organic complexes [50]. However, excessive Zn concentrations in the soil can hinder plant development [51]. In addition, calcium, phosphates, and copper weaken the uptake of zinc into plants [52].
The variance analysis of Zn concentration in the biomass of the investigated perennial grasses revealed a significant impact of factor A (species of plant) (Figure 2). The Ph. arundinacea biomass contained significantly more Zn (22.75–25.55 mg/kg) than the B. inermis biomass (8.40–9.28 mg/kg) (p < 0.05). Evaluating the interaction of the A (species of plant) and B (fertilization) factors, it was also found that the Zn concentration in the biomass of unfertilized and fertilized Ph. arundinacea was significantly higher than in the biomass of unfertilized and fertilized B. inermis (p < 0.05). This means that Ph. arundinacea is able to absorb Zn from the soil more than B. inermis. For this reason, Ph. arundinacea could potentially be used for Zn scavenging from soil. Rosikon et al. [53] also noted that Ph. arundinacea accumulates zinc in their biomass better than Miscanthus giganteus L.
The zinc concentration in the biomass of B. inermis and Ph. arundinacea did not change significantly depending on fertilization with SSC (p > 0.05).

2.3.2. Cadmium (Cd) Concentration in Plant Biomass, mg/kg

The variance analysis of the cadmium (Cd) concentration in the biomass of the studied perennial grasses also revealed a significant impact of factor A (species of plant) (Figure 2). However, the Cd concentrations were significantly higher in the B. inermis biomass than in the Ph. arundinacea biomass (p < 0.05). An analysis of the interaction between the factors A (species of plants) and B (fertilization) also showed that the Cd concentration in the biomass of unfertilized and fertilized, with 75 t/ha SSC, B. inermis was significantly higher than in biomass of unfertilized and fertilized, with 75 t/ha SSC, Ph. arundinacea (p < 0.05). After fertilization with 125 t/ha SSC, the concentration of Cd in the B. inermis biomass decreased significantly (p < 0.05). This may have been because the sewage sludge compost increased the soil pH while reducing the cadmium mobility in soil and its availability to plants. However, the concentration of cadmium in the biomass of Ph. arundinacea did not change significantly after fertilization with sewage sludge compost. Rosikon et al. [53] also found that the fertilization of Ph. arundinacea with municipal sewage sludge did not cause a significant increase in the Cd concentrations in biomass in the first year of the experiment.

2.3.3. Lead (Pb) Concentration in Plant Biomass, mg/kg

The study found that lead concentrations, as well as zinc concentrations, were significantly higher in the Ph. arundinacea biomass (0.069–0.084 mg/kg) than in the B. inermis biomass (0.027–0.044 mg/kg) (p < 0.05) (Figure 2). The variance analysis of the Pb concentration in the biomass of the studied perennial grasses revealed a significant impact of factor A (species of plant). This may mean that Ph. arundinacea, more than B. inermis, takes up Pb from the soil and is more suitable for use in soil lead removal. When evaluating the interaction of the A and B factors, it was found that the lead concentration in the biomass of unfertilized and fertilized Ph. arundinacea was significantly higher than in the biomass of unfertilized and fertilized B. inermis (p < 0.05). In addition, it was found that soil fertilization with 125 t/ha SSC significantly increased the lead concentration in the Ph. arundinacea biomass (p < 0.05). The concentration of lead in the B. inermis biomass did not change significantly after fertilization with SSC (p > 0.05).

2.3.4. Copper (Cu), Chromium (Cr), and Nickel (Ni) Concentration in Plant Biomass, mg/kg

During the study, neither grass species nor fertilization with compost had a significant effect on the concentrations of Cu, Cr, and Ni in the grasses’ biomass (p > 0.05) (Figure 2). However, Rosikon et al. [53] found that fertilization of Ph. arundinacea with municipal sewage sludge increased Ni concentrations in biomass in the first year of the experiment.
The copper (Cu) concentration in the B. inermis biomass was on average 1.95–2.6 mg/kg, and in the Ph. arundinacea biomass—2.31–2.33 mg/kg. Copper (Cu) is an essential element in plant nutrition. It is included in the composition of many enzymes, increases their activity, and stimulates other physiological functions of plants. Copper from the soil, and accordingly from the sewage sludge compost, enters the plants gradually. There are studies that show that even if the concentration of copper in the soil is increased 12 times, it is increased only up to 2 times in the grains, tubers, straws, and leaves [49,51]. Perhaps, this is why there was no increase in the biomass copper concentration in the herbaceous energy plants due to SSC fertilization. In addition, it is likely that a similar situation could occur as with Cd; compost fertilization could have increased the pH, decreased the mobility of copper, and, therefore, reduced its uptake into the plants.
Higher concentrations of chromium (Cr) are harmful to plants, animals, and humans. Cr can cause chlorosis of young plant leaves and stop root growth [49]. Bergman W. [51] found that if up to 55 mg/kg of Cr accumulates in potato leaves (SM), the tips become dry. In this study, the Cr concentration in the biomass of B. inermis was on average 0.33–0.42 mg/kg, and in the biomass of Ph. arundinacea—0.22–0.36 mg/kg (Figure 2).
Nickel is needed in small amounts by plants and other organisms. However, higher concentrations of nickel have a negative impact on plants and animals. For example, when growing oats in sandy soil with a high nickel content, leaf necrosis occurs [49]. Bergman W. [51] found that when there is more than 100 mg/kg of nickel in the soil, the chlorosis of leaves of potatoes, beans, and cereals is observed. Plants of the Poaceae family are particularly sensitive to excess nickel [52]. During the described study, the nickel (Ni) concentration in the B. inermis biomass was on average 0.21–0.35 mg/kg (Figure 2). The concentration of nickel in the biomass of the Ph. arundinacea was 0.17–0.2 mg/kg.

2.4. Differences in Values of the Agrochemical Parameters of the Soil between the Years 2014 and 2017

2.4.1. Differences in Soil pH

Soil acidity (pH) determines the mobility and absorption of nutrients by plants, their physical properties, the biological activity of microorganisms, plant growth, and development [54]. Also, in the case of acidic soil, the mobility of heavy metals increases [55]; therefore, in Lithuania, it is prohibited to use all types and categories of sewage sludge in agriculture if the soil pH is <5.5 [56]. The soil pH of the described experiment was higher than 5.5 (pH 6.2–6.5), i.e., fertilization with SSC was possible.
The soil pH was analyzed prior to the installation of the herbaceous plant experiment in 2014 and after four years of plant growth at the end of the experiment in 2017. The soil pH change over the four years of study was analyzed; the results are presented in Table S1 and Figure 3. It was found that in unfertilized fields, the soil became more acidic (pH decreased by 0.03–0.07) (Figure 3), and in the fields that were fertilized with the highest investigated rates of SSC (75 t/ha and 125 t/ha), the soil pH increased (0.20–0.40) (Figure 3). SSC significantly increased the soil pH over the years studied. Although the variance analysis of the soil pH change revealed a significant impact of factor B (fertilization), SSC significantly increased the pH increase during the study years only in the soil where B. inermis (p < 0.05) grew. An analysis of the interaction between factors A (species of plant) and B also showed that the increase in soil pH where Ph. arundinacea was grown also increased, but not significantly (p > 0.05). Changes in the pH of the soil where the B. inermis grew over the years of research did not significantly differ from the changes in the pH of the soil where Ph. arundinacea grew.

2.4.2. Differences in Mobile Phosphorus (P2O5) Concentrations in the Soil, mg/kg

During the research, the soil mobile phosphorus (P2O5) concentrations were determined before the installation of the experiment and at the end of the experiment. However, as in the case of pH, the change in the mobile phosphorus (P2O5) concentrations during the research years was analyzed because that was the most important thing. The variance analysis of the change in the concentration of mobile phosphorus revealed a significant impact of factor A (species of plant) and factor B (fertilization) (Table S2). It was found that after four years of the experiment, the concentration of P2O5 in the unfertilized soil decreased, while in the soil that was fertilized with sewage sludge compost, it significantly increased (Table S2). Fertilization with sewage sludge compost at rates of 75 t/ha and 125 t/ha significantly increased the increase in P2O5 concentrations in the soil (p < 0.05) (Figure 4). Analysis of the interaction between factors A and B also showed that fertilization with sewage sludge compost significantly increased the increase in P2O5 concentrations in the soil where both B. inermis and Ph. arundinacea grew (p < 0.05). It was also found that the concentration of mobile phosphorus increased less in the soil where Ph. arundinacea grew than in the soil where B. inermis grew (p < 0.05). This may mean that Ph. arundinacea can absorb more P2O5 from the soil and remains significantly less in the soil.

2.4.3. Differences in Mobile Potassium (K2O) Concentrations in the Soil, mg/kg

It was found that the K2O concentrations in the soil decreased significantly after four years of research (Table S3 and Figure 4). In the soil where B. inermis grew, and which was fertilized with 125 t/ha SSC, K2O concentrations decreased significantly less (p < 0.05). That is, fertilization with 125 t/ha of sewage sludge compost significantly increased the K2O concentrations in the soil where the B. inermis grew. No significant difference was found between the concentrations of mobile potassium in the soil where B. inermis grew and the concentrations of mobile potassium in the soil where the Ph. arundinacea grew.

2.4.4. Differences in Total Nitrogen (Ntotal) (%) and in Organic Carbon (Corg.) (%) Concentrations in the Soil

The study found that neither the sewage sludge compost fertilizer nor the plant species grown in this soil had a statistically significant effect on the concentration of total nitrogen (Ntotal) and organic carbon (Corg.) in the soil (p > 0.05) (Tables S4 and S5 and Figure 5).

2.5. Differences in Concentrations of Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni) in the Soil between the Years 2014 and 2017, mg/kg

2.5.1. Differences in Concentrations of Copper (Cu) in the Soil, mg/kg

As already mentioned, the concentrations of heavy metals in the soil were determined before the installation of the experiment and after four years, at the end of the experiment. Changes in heavy metal concentrations in the soil that occurred during the four years of the experiment were analyzed. The main objective was to determine how fertilization with SSC affected the concentrations of heavy metals in the soil, and which plant (B. inermis or Ph. arundinacea) better cleans the soil of heavy metals.
It was found that the variance analysis of the change in copper (Cu) concentration revealed a significant impact of factor B (fertilization) (Figure 6). The 75 and 125 t/ha rates of SSC significantly increased the Cu concentrations in the soil where B. inermis and Ph. arundinacea grew (p < 0.05) (Figure 6; Table S6). An analysis of the interaction between factors A (species of plant) and B also confirmed this tendency. At the beginning of the experiment, there was an average of 6.00–6.47 mg/kg of Cu in the soil (Table S6). The maximum allowable concentration (MAC) of Cu in Lithuania for sewage sludge of the II category is 300–1000 mg/kg [56]. After fertilization with SSC containing 142 mg/kg of Cu, the Cu concentrations in the soil became 6.00–8.53 mg/kg. These concentrations did not exceed the maximum allowable concentration of Cu in soil in Lithuania—50 mg/kg.
Copper is one of the more mobile elements in nature, especially in an acidic medium. However, this element is immobile in an alkaline medium. At a soil pH of 5.4–6.1, Cu precipitates as hydroxides and phosphates [49]. The soil pH of the described experiment was 6.20–6.70. As a result, there should have been little mobile Cu in the soil. However, it may still have been mobile because, even though the Cu concentration in the soil increased after SSC was applied, the Cu concentration in the grass biomass did not change significantly. The changes in the Cu concentrations in the soil after four years of the study were not significantly dependent on the cultivated plant species (p > 0.05) (Figure 6; Table S6).

2.5.2. Differences in Concentrations of Zinc (Zn) in the Soil, mg/kg

High concentrations of zinc (Zn) accumulated in the soil can inhibit plant growth. Bergman W. [51] found that when the total Zn in the soil is 1000 mg/kg, the yield of winter wheat is strongly reduced, and when Zn concentration is 1500 mg/kg, there is no yield. Dudka et al. [57] argued that Zn concentrations in the soil of up to 200–300 mg/kg are not harmful to plants. However, from an environmental and legal point of view, such high concentrations of Zn in the soil are unacceptable. The following soil Zn concentrations were determined at the beginning of the described experiment: 18.10–22.20 mg/kg (Table S7). The concentration of Zn in the SSC was 710 mg/kg, while the MAC in Lithuania for sewage sludge of the II category is 800–2500 mg/kg [56]. After fertilization with SSC, Zn concentrations in the soil (28.00–32.57 mg/kg) did not exceed the MAC 160 mg/kg. However, a variance analysis of the change in Zn concentration revealed the significant impact of factor B (fertilization) (Figure 6). The 75 and 125 t/ha rates of SSC significantly increased the Zn concentrations in the soil where B. inermis and Ph. arundinacea grew (p < 0.05). An analysis of the interaction between factors A (species of plant) and B also confirmed this tendency. Changes in the Zn concentrations in the soil were not significantly dependent on the species of grass grown in this soil (p > 0.05) (Figure 6).

2.5.3. Differences in Concentrations of Cadmium (Cd) in the Soil, mg/kg

A variance analysis of the change in cadmium (Cd) concentration revealed a significant impact of factor A (species of plant) and factor B (fertilization) (Figure 6). SSC significantly increased the Cd concentrations in the soil (p < 0.05). When evaluating the interaction of the A and B factors, it was found that 75 t/ha and 125 t/ha rates of SSC significantly increased the Cd concentrations in the soil where both the B. inermis and Ph. arundinacea grew (p < 0.05). In the soil where Ph. arundinacea grew, Cd concentrations increased significantly less during the four years of the study than in the soil where B. inermis grew (p < 0.05).
Bergman W. [51] conducted studies and found that with a Cd concentration in the soil of 100–300 mg/kg, wheat yield decreases and sugar beets almost completely disappear. Potato leaves turn yellow if there is 100 mg/kg of cadmium in the soil. However, such high concentrations of Cd are rare in soil. At the beginning of the described study, the Cd concentrations were 0.047–0.059 mg/kg (Table S8). After fertilization with SSC, the Cd concentrations were 0.069–0.087 mg/kg and did not exceed the Lithuanian MAC—1.0 mg/kg [56]. The concentration of Cd in the SSC used in the experiment was 1.81 mg/kg, while the Lithuanian MAC for sewage sludge of the II category is 1.5–5 mg/kg.

2.5.4. Differences in Concentrations of Chromium (Cr) in the Soil, mg/kg

It was found that fertilization with SSC increased the concentration of chromium (Cr) in the soil. However, the differences in Cr concentrations in unfertilized and fertilized soil were insignificant (p > 0.05) (Figure 6, Table S9). It was not found that one plant species under study removed chromium from the soil more than another plant species.
During the described experiment, the soil was fertilized with sewage sludge compost containing 40.5 mg/kg of Cr (the MAC of Cr in Lithuania for sewage sludge of the II category is 140–170 mg/kg) [56]. The initial soil Cr concentrations were 7.70–10.53 mg/kg (Table S9). After fertilization with SSC, the Cr concentrations were 9.60–10.53 mg/kg and did not exceed the MAC of Cr in Lithuania—50 mg/kg [56].

2.5.5. Differences in Concentrations of Lead (Pb) in the Soil, mg/kg

In nature, lead (Pb) is found in compounds or soluble [49,58]. The most common lead compounds are lead sulfides (PbS) and sulfates (PbSO4) [59]. Lead begins to affect plants when it accumulates in the soil in large quantities—100–200 mg/kg [49]. It is especially harmful in acidic soils (pH < 5.0) [49]. As already mentioned, the soil pH ranged from 6.20 to 6.70 during the described study.
The initial concentrations of Pb in the soil of the experiment were 7.74–8.13 mg/kg (Table S10). After fertilization with SSC, the Pb concentrations were 8.30–9.19 mg/kg and did not exceed the MAC of 50 mg/kg in Lithuania [56]. The concentration of Pb in the SSC was 40.0 mg/kg, while the MAC in Lithuania for sewage sludge of the II category is 140–150 mg/kg. Changes in the Pb concentrations in the soil after four years of the study were not significantly dependent on the fertilization with SSC or on the cultivated plant species (p > 0.05) (Figure 6, Table S10).

2.5.6. Differences in Concentrations of Nickel (Ni) in the Soil, mg/kg

Changes in the Ni concentrations in the soil after four years of the study were not significantly dependent on fertilization with sewage sludge compost or the plant species (p > 0.05) (Figure 6, Table S11). At the beginning of the experiment, the Ni concentrations in the soil were 5.90–7.29 mg/kg (Table S11). After fertilization with SSC, the Ni concentrations increased to 7.05–7.28 mg/kg but did not exceed the MAC of Ni in Lithuania (50 mg/kg) [56]. The concentration of Ni in the sewage sludge compost, which was used to fertilize the studied grasses, was 25.1 mg/kg. This did not exceed the MAC in Lithuania for sewage sludge of the II category (50–70 mg/kg).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Field Experiment

The experiment was carried out at the Vokė Branch of the Institute of Agriculture of the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (LAMMC) on a soil sandy loam Haplic Luvisol (LVha) [60] from 2014 to 2017 (Figure 7). The experimental design was a Split-Plot design (Table 2). The length of the field was 4 m. The width was 4 m. The area was 16 m2. Repetitions—4. Number of fields—40.
The seed rate of Bromopsis inermis Leyss. was 20 kg/ha. The width between the rows was 30 cm. The depth of seed insertion was 1.5–3 cm. After sowing, they were pressed. Phalaroides arundinacea L. was sown, like the B. inermis, in a pure crop. The seed rate was 10 kg/ha, the seed insertion depth—0.5–2 cm, and the width between the rows—30 cm.
Scheme of the field experiment:
Factor—A (species of plant)
  • Bromopsis inermis Leyss. (variety ‘Galinda’);
  • Phalaroides arundinacea L. (variety ‘Alaušas’).
Factor—B (fertilization)
  • Unfertilized (control);
  • N90P60K90 (90 kg/ha N, 60 kg/ha P2O5, 90 kg/ha K2O);
  • 25 t/ha SSC DM;
  • 75 t/ha SSC DM;
  • 125 t/ha SSC DM.
Mineral NPK fertilizers were added every year at the beginning of vegetation in spring. Sewage sludge compost was incorporated into the soil once in the spring before the experiment installation (2014). In 2014, all types of fertilizers were incorporated into the soil at a depth of 20 cm. Then, the mineral fertilizers were poured onto the soil surface every year (2015, 2016, and 2017).

3.2. Sewage Sludge Compost (SSC)

To fertilize the grasses, compost from the sewage sludge of the city of Vilnius was used. Sewage sludge compost was obtained from the company “Biastra Plius” in the spring of 2014. It was then analyzed before setting up the experiment. The following parameter values were determined in the SSC: Ntotal 1.34%, Ptotal 0.90%, Ktotal 0.37%, organic matter 29.3%, Corg. 17.8%, and pHKCl 7.1.
Also, the following heavy metals were determined in the SSC samples by the standardized method of atomic absorption spectrometry [61]: copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), and nickel (Ni). The heavy metal concentrations were as follows: lead (Pb) 40.0 mg/kg, chromium (Cr) 40.5 mg/kg, nickel (Ni) 25.1 mg/kg, copper (Cu) 142 mg/kg, zinc (Zn) 710 mg/kg, and cadmium (Cd) 1.81 mg/kg.
A mineral nitrogen fertilizer rate of 90 kg/ha was applied to the perennial grasses. The minimum sewage sludge compost rate used in the experiment was calculated according to the amount of nitrogen for four years. If the annual nitrogen of the mineral fertilizers is 90 kg/ha, then it is four times higher than the compost—360 kg/ha. It was about 25 t/ha of SSC DM. There is no legal act describing the requirements for fertilization with SSC in Lithuania; therefore, it was decided to follow the legal acts describing sewage sludge norms. At the time of the experiment, in accordance with LAND 20-2005 [56], the maximum allowable amount of sewage sludge spread on the fields was 33 t/ha of DM per year. Thus, 132 t/ha SSC DM was allowed to be incorporated into the soil for four years for fertilizing energy plants. For the described experiment, the maximum rate of application of fertilizers was chosen close to the maximum permissible rate—125 t/ha SSC DM. The fertilizer rate of 75 t/ha SSC DM was chosen as an intermediate between the minimum and maximum rates.

3.3. Plant Biomass Parameters

3.3.1. Biomass Dry Matter (DM) Yield of Perennial Herbaceous Plants

Ph. arundinacea and B. inermis did not produce a significant biomass yield in the first year of cultivation. As a result, it was decided not to include the first year’s harvest in the biomass harvest accounting. After that, the effects of SSC and mineral fertilizers on biomass formation of bioenergy herbaceous plants were monitored annually. At the end of the growing season (end of September—mid-October) in 2015, 2016, and 2017, the green mass yield of grasses was harvested and weighed. The dry matter (DM) biomass yield was also subsequently determined.

3.3.2. Plant Biomass Quality Parameters Which Determine Its Quality as a Solid Biofuel

Samples of plant biomass, to determine their appropriateness for solid biofuel, were taken in the fourth year of the study before biomass harvesting (at the end of September 2017). Biomass samples were tested for [62,63]: water content, % [64] (weight method); calorific value, MJ kg–1; ash content, %; nitrogen (N) concentration; sulfur (S) concentration; carbon (C) concentration; potassium (K) concentration, and phosphorus (P) concentration.
The calorific value, MJ/kg [65] (direct burning) was determined with a Calorimeter C 2000 (IKA, Staufen, Germany). The analysis was carried out using a special methodology [66,67].
The ash content and % were determined using the weight method (ash content of dry mass = ash weight/dry sample weight × 100) [66].
The nitrogen (N), sulfur (S), and carbon (C) concentrations were analyzed with the Dumas method using a fully automatic Vario EL III analyzer (Elementar, Langenselbold, Germany). Samples of biomass weights (0.5 mg) were weighed in tin foil and put in the autosampler. The biomass samples were heated in a high-temperature furnace and rapidly combusted at about 1000 °C. The remaining elements were measured in a thermal conductivity detector (TCD) without any reference gas flow. The data management (input/output) was performed via computer [67].
The potassium (K) concentration was determined by atomic absorption spectrometry method using an atomic absorption analyzer Aanalyst 200 (PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA, USA) [67].
The phosphorus (P) concentration was determined spectrophotometrically at a wavelength of 430 nm with an atomic emission spectrophotometer Perkin Elmer Optima 2100 [67].

3.3.3. Heavy Metals in Plant Biomass

Samples of plant biomass for the analysis of heavy metals were taken during the fourth year of research in 2017 at the end of September. In them, using the standardized method of atomic absorption spectrometry [61], the following concentrations were determined: copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), and nickel (Ni).
Heavy metals, mg/kg, were measured by standardized atomic absorption spectrometry using an AA spectrometer with an air–acetylene flame Aanalyst 200 or a graphite furnace Aanalyst 600 (PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA, USA). The biomass samples were burned at 550 °C to ashes wherein the ash content was calculated. A total of 0.5 g of ash was then mineralized with 3 mL of 65% nitric acid (HNO3) (Honeywell, No. 30709) and 9 mL of 37% hydrochloric acid (HCl) (Honeywell, No. 30721) in a mineralisator Gerhardt Analytical System (type KT (-L) 20s, Konigswinter, Germany). The solution obtained after wet mineralization was filtered through a 0.8 μm filter, diluted to the mark in a 50 mL flask with deionized water (water deionization system Purite Analyst 320, Purite, Thame, UK), and shaken. If necessary, the solution was diluted. Subsequently, the total heavy metals concentrations (mg/L) were determined and converted to concentrations of the analyzed element (mg/kg) according to their proportions.

3.4. Soil Parameters

Soil samples were collected before the installation of the experiment (spring 2014) and at the end of the experiment (end of September 2017) at a depth of 0–20 cm. Later, in the laboratory, the agrochemical parameters were determined in these samples. All plant residues were carefully removed before grinding the soil samples. The soil was milled until the entire fraction passed through a sieve with a sufficiently fine mesh (1–2 mm).
The pHKCl was determined by the potentiometric method (LST ISO 10390:2005) [68] using automatic pH meter (Labfit AS-3010D, Labfit Pty Ltd., Bayswater, WA, Australia). A pH analysis was performed using a 1:5 (vol/vol) soil suspension in 1 M KCl (Honeywell, No. 12636). The mixture was shaken for 60 min and left to sit for 1 h. The pH of the suspension was measured at 20 ± 2 °C with a pH meter and while stirring [68].
Mobile phosphorus (P2O5), mg/kg, and potassium (K2O), mg/kg, were extracted using a 1:20 (wt/vol) soil suspension of ammonium lactate-acetic acid extractant (pH 3.7). The suspension was shaken for 4 h. Mobile P2O5 was determined in the extract using ammonium molybdate (Honeywell, No. 09880) via the spectrometric method with a Shimadzu UV 1800 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan). Mobile K2O was determined using flame emission spectroscopy with a JENWAY PFP7 flame photometer (London, UK) [69].
The total nitrogen (Ntotal), % was determined by Kjeldahl mineralization and a distillation system (UDK 139 Semi-Automatic Kjeldahl Distillation Unit, VELP Scientifica, Usmate Velate (MB), Italy) (LST ISO 11261:1995) [70]. The method consists of heating a sample to 360–410 °C with concentrated sulfuric acid (H2SO4) (Honeywell, No. 30743), which decomposes the organic sample by oxidation to liberate the reduced nitrogen as ammonium sulfate. Hot concentrated sulfuric acid oxidizes carbon and sulfur. Hg2SO4 catalysts (Penta No. 25740) are added to make the digestion go faster. Na2SO4 or K2SO4 (Chempur, No. 118078707) is also added to increase the boiling point of H2SO4. Digestion is complete when the liquor is clarified with the release of fumes. The end of the condenser is dipped into the volume of HCl acid (Honeywell, No. 30721) and the sample solution is then distilled with a small amount of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) (Chempur, No. 118078707) [70].
Organic carbon (Corg.), %, was determined by the Turin method according to ISO 10694:1995 [71] with dry combustion and a total carbon analyzer Liqui TOC II (Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Langenselbold, Germany). The carbon in the soil is oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO2) by heating the soil to at least 900 °C in a stream of carbon-free synthetic air. To determine the organic carbon, carbonates are first removed using a hydrochloric acid solution (HCl) (Honeywell, No. 30721), 4 M. The organic carbon concentration was calculated by subtracting carbonate carbon from the total carbon concentration [71].
Also, the following heavy metals were determined in soil samples by the standardized method of atomic absorption spectrometry [61]: copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), and nickel (Ni). Heavy metals, mg/kg, were measured by standardized atomic absorption spectrometry using an AA spectrometer with an air–acetylene flame Aanalyst 200 or a graphite furnace Aanalyst 600 (PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA, USA). The soil samples were burned at 550 °C to ashes; the ash content was then calculated. A total of 0.5 g of ash was then mineralized with 3 mL of 65% nitric acid (HNO3) (Honeywell, No. 30709) and 9 mL of 37% hydrochloric acid (HCl) (Honeywell, No. 30721) in a mineralisator Gerhardt Analytical System (type KT (-L) 20s, Konigswinter, Germany). The solution obtained after wet mineralization was filtered through a 0.8 μm filter, diluted to the mark in a 50 mL flask with deionized water (water deionization system Purite Analyst 320, Purite, Thame, UK), and shaken. If necessary, the solution was diluted further. Subsequently, the total heavy metals concentrations (mg/L) were determined and converted to concentrations of the analyzed element (mg/kg) according to their proportions.

3.5. Statistical Analysis

The significant differences between the values of parameters of various variants (A factor—species of plant—and B factor—fertilization rate) were determined using the two-way analysis of variance method [72]. The Fisher test was used for the comparison of data [73]. Comparisons were performed using p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 probability levels (using Excel-based ANOVA (Microsoft Office Excel 2010)). Also, the results were presented as the arithmetic mean ± standard error (SE).

4. Conclusions

Bromopsis inermis Leyss. variety ‘Galinda’ and Phalaroides arundinacea L. variety ‘Alaušas’ formed a small total biomass DM yield (6.6 t/ha within three years) in the early years of cultivation. Also, the biomasses of these grasses had a very high ash content and concentrations of nitrogen and potassium, which greatly reduces the quality of the biomasses of these grasses as a solid biofuel. Although, the biomass of B.inermis had a higher calorific value (19.0–19.2 MJ/kg) and lower concentrations of sulfur and phosphorus in the biomass than Ph. arundinacea (p < 0.05). However, it may be appropriate to grow these grasses to clean the soil of heavy metals. Ph. arundinacea could potentially be used to clean the soil from Pb and Zn, and B. inermis could be used to clean the soil from Cd. More detailed research is needed to know for sure. During the experiment, fertilization with SSC did not significantly affect the quality parameters of the grass biomasses, which determine its quality as a solid biofuel. However, the compost performed poorly as a fertilizer. Fertilization with 125 t/ha SSC significantly increased the total biomass DM yield of Ph. arundinacea (p < 0.05) only. However, the biomass yield was still significantly lower than when fertilizing grasses with mineral fertilizers (p < 0.05). At the same time, using SSC as a fertilizer increased the concentration of heavy metals in the soil. For these reasons, it is not recommended to fertilize B. inermis and Ph. arundinacea with sewage sludge compost. However, when using SSC as a fertilizer, it is recommended to analyze the heavy metal concentrations in the SSC and to monitor the heavy metal concentrations in the soil before and after fertilization.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants12233939/s1, Table S1. Soil pH in the experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L.; Table S2. Mobile phosphorus (P2O5) concentrations in the soil of experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., mg/kg; Table S3. Mobile potassium (K2O) concentrations in the soil of experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., mg/kg; Table S4. Total nitrogen (Ntotal) concentrations in the soil of experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., %; Table S5. Organic carbon (Corg.) concentrations in the soil of experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., %; Table S6. Copper (Cu) concentrations in the soil of experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., mg/kg; Table S7. Zinc (Zn) concentrations in the soil of experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., mg/kg; Table S8. Cadmium (Cd) concentrations in the soil of experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., mg/kg; Table S9. Chromium (Cr) concentrations in the soil of experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., mg/kg; Table S10. Lead (Pb) concentrations in the soil of experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., mg/kg; Table S11. Nickel (Ni) concentrations in the soil of experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., mg/kg.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A., E.B. and A.R.; methodology, J.A. and E.B.; investigation, J.A. and E.B.; formal analysis, J.A. and E.B.; data curation, J.A.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.; writing—review and editing, J.A., E.B. and A.R.; visualization J.A., E.B. and A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

The paper presents research findings, obtained through the long-term research program, “Biopotential and quality of plants for multifunctional use” of the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Trejo, M.; Bhuyar, P.; Unpaprom, Y.; Dussadee, N.; Ramaraj, R. Advancement of fermentable sugars from fresh elephant ear plant weed for efficient bioethanol production. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 7377–7387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Trejo, M.; Bhuyar, P.; Velu, G.; Pérez, E.Z.; Unpaprom, Y.; Trail, A.; Ramaraj, R. The effect of various pretreatments conditions on the distribution of fermentable sugar from dried elephant ear plant. Fuel 2022, 324 Pt B, 124624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lithuanian Energy Institute, Ministry of Education and Science. Atsinaujinantys Energijos šaltiniai. Mokslo ir Technologijų Populiarinimo Projekto “Apie Energija Mastyk Kitaip” Leidinys. 2008. Available online: http://www.lei.lt/_img/_up/File/atvir/erlic/index_files/Atsinaujinantys_energijos_saltiniai.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2016). (In Lithuanian).
  4. Sodsai, P.; Rachdawong, P. The current situation on CO2 emissions from the steel industry in Thailand and mitigation options. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2012, 6, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dussadee, N.; Unpaprom, Y.; Ramaraj, R. Grass silage for biogas production. Adv. Silage Prod. Util. 2016, 16, 153. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sokka, L.; Sinkko, T.; Holma, A.; Manninen, K.; Pasanen, K.; Rantala, M.; Leskinen, P. Environmental impacts of the national renewable energy targets—A case study from Finland. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 1599–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cherubini, F.; Strømman, A.H. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 437–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. WP3 Economic Policy Instruments. Vilnius. 2007. Available online: http://www.ecuba.it/user/upload_inc_fls/D04_PTA_LEI_LT.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2023). (In Lithuanian).
  9. Lithuanian Biomass Energy Association LITBIOMA. Lietuvos Atsinaujinančių Energijos Išteklių Naudojimo Skatinimo Veiksmų Planas 2010–2020 m. Taikomasis Mokslinis Tyrimas. Ataskaita (galutinė). Vilnius. 2008. Available online: http://www.ena.lt/doc_atsi/Atsi_EI.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2016). (In Lithuanian).
  10. Ambrulevičius, R. Biomasės Deginimas Mažos Bei Vidutinės Galios Katilinėse ir Emisijų Problemos. Energetika 2010, 56, 103–109. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  11. Njakou Djomo, S.; El Kasmioui, O.; De Groote, T.; Broeckx, L.S.; Verlinden, M.S.; Berhongaray, G.; Fichot, R.; Zona, D.; Dillen, S.Y.; King, J.S.; et al. Energy and climate benefits of bioelectricity from low-input short rotation woody crops on agricultural land over a two-year rotation. Appl. Energy 2013, 111, 862–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Keoleian, G.A.; Volk, T.A. Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: Life cycle energy, environmental and economic performance. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2005, 24, 385–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Borkowska, H.; Molas, R. Two extremely different crops, Salix and Sida, as sources of renewable bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 36, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jablonowski, N.D.; Kollmann, T.; Nabel, M.; Damm, T.; Klose, H.; Müller, M.; Bläsing, M.; Seebold, S.; Krafft, S.; Kuperjans, I.; et al. Valorization of Sida (Sida hermaphrodita) biomass for multiple energy purposes. Glob. Chang. Biol. Bioenergy 2016, 9, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Djomo, S.N.; Ac, A.; Zenone, T.; De Groote, T.; Bergante, S.; Facciotto, G.; Sixto, H.; Ciria, P.C.; Weger, J.; Ceulemans, R. Energy performances of intensive and extensive short rotation cropping systems for woody biomass production in the EU. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 845–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mažvila, J. The Productivity of Lithuania’s Land/Compiled; Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry: Kėdainiai, Lithuania, 2011; 280p. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  17. Lietuvos Respublikos Žemės Fondas. 2017. Available online: http://zis.lt/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ZF_2017.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2023). (In Lithuanian).
  18. Bakšienė, E.; Titova, J. Effects of cultivation technologies on woody biomass yield of various willow (Salix spp.) cultivars. Zemdirb. Agric. 2018, 105, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Titova, J.; Baltrėnaitė, E. Physical and Chemical Properties of Biochar Produced from Sewage Sludge Compost and Plants Biomass, Fertilized with that Compost, Important for Soil Improvement. Waste Biomass Valorization 2020, 12, 3781–3800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Helby, P.; Rosenqvist, H.; Roos, A. Retreat from Salix. Swedish experience with energy crops in the 1990s. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 422–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ericsson, K.; Rosenqvist, H.; Ganko, E.; Pisarek, M.; Nilsson, L. An agro-economic analysis of willow cultivation in Poland. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mola-Yudego, B.; González-Olabarria, J.R. Mapping the expansion and distribution ofwillow plantations for bioenergy in Sweden: Lessons to be learned about the spread of energy crops. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Milovanović, J.; Babović, N.; Đorđević, A.; Spasić, S.; Marišová, E.; Končeková, L.; Kotrla, M.; Tóthová, M. External and Internal Factors Influencing the Growth and Biomass Production of Short Rotation Woods Genus Salix and Perennial Grass Miscanthus; Jureková, Z., Dražić, G., Eds.; Faculty of Applied Ecology FUTURA, Singidunum University: Belgrade, Serbia, 2011; 176p. [Google Scholar]
  24. Šarūnaitė, L.; Kadžiulienė, Ž.; Tilvikienė, V.; Lazauskas, S. Daugiametės Žolės Bioenergetikai; Baltijos Jūros Regiono Bioenergetikos Skatinimo Projekto Leidinys; Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry: Akademija, Kėdainiai Distr., Lithuania, 2011; 9p. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  25. Bivilienė, A. Lietuvoje Augančių Daugiamečių Žolių Genetinė Įvairovė; Spaudvita: Akademija, Kėdainiai District, Lithuania, 2010; 36p. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  26. Gudžinskas, Z. Lietuvos Induočiai Augalai; Botanikos Instituto Leidykla: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1999; 212p. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  27. Šedys, J. Lengvoms Dirvoms Tinkamų Daugiamečių Varpinių Žolių Selekcijai Rūšių Parinkimas. 1970–1976 m. Scientific Report. Vokė Branch, Institute of Agriculture: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1977. unpublished work. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  28. Šedys, J. Beginklės Dirsuolės Veislė ‘Galinda‘. Veislės Išvedimo Vokės Filiale 1979–1992 Metais Ataskaita. Scientific Report. Vokė Branch, Institute of Agriculture: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1993. unpublished work. (In Lithuanian). [Google Scholar]
  29. Susawaengsup, C.; Jaradrattanapaiboon, A.; Sornsakdanuphap, J.; Choengpanya, K.; Jaradrattanapaiboon, Y.; Tongkoom, K.; Bhuyar, P. Effect of Fertilization Combined with Shading on Growth and Aromatic Constituents of Niamhom (Stro-bilanthes nivea Craib) Using an Internet of Things (IoT) Controlled Irrigation System. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gupta, S.; Sharma, S.; Aich, A.; Verma, A.K.; Bhuyar, P.; Nadda, A.K.; Mulla, S.I.; Kalia, S. Chicken Feather Waste Hydrolysate as a Potential Biofertilizer for Environmental Sustainability in Organic Agriculture Management. Waste Biomass Valorization 2023, 14, 2783–2799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ozdemir, S.; Turp, S.M.; Oz, N. Simultaneous drysorption of heavy metals by porous adsorbents during sludge composting. Environ. Eng. Res. 2020, 25, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Quaye, A.K.; Volk, T.A. Biomass production and soil nutrients in organic and inorganic fertilized willow biomass production systems. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 57, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Antonkiewicz, J.; Kołodziej, B.; Bielińska, E.J.; Popławska, A. The possibility of using sewage sludge for energy crop cultivation exemplified by reed canary grass and giant miscanthus. Soil Sci. Annu. 2019, 70, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kołodziej, B.; Antonkiewicz, J.; Bielińska, E.J.; Witkowicz, R.; Dubis, B. Recovery of microelements from municipal sewage sludge by reed canary grass and giant miscanthus. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2022, 25, 441–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wadzinska, B. Some effects of Sida hermaphrodita R. cultivation on sewage sludge. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2003, 12, 119–122. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kacprzak, M.; Ociepa, A.; Bien, J. The influence of soil fertilization on the amounts of ashes and contents of heavy metals in biomass ashes. Arch. Combust. 2010, 30, 125–131. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bowszys, T.; Wierzbowska, J.; Sternik, P.; Busse, M. Effect of the application of sewage sludge compost on the content and leaching of zinc and copper from soils under agricultural use. J. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 16, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sevel, L.; Nord-Larsen, T.; Ingerslev, M.; Jørgensen, U.; Raulund-Rasmussen, K. Fertilization of SRC Willow, I: Biomass Production Response. BioEnergy Res. 2013, 7, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Phillips, C.J.; Marden, M.; Suzanne, L.M. Observations of root growth of young poplar and willow planting tipes. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 2014, 44, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kacprzak, M.; Neczaj, E.; Fijałkowski, K.; Grobelak, A.; Grosser, A.; Worwag, M.; Rorat, A.; Brattebo, H.; Almås, Å.; Singh, B.R. Sewage sludge disposal strategies for sustainable development. Environ. Res. 2017, 156, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lazauskas, J. Augalininkystė Lietuvoje 1895–1995 m; Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1998; 388p. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  42. Jakienė, E.; Liakas, V.; Klimas, E.; Bačkaitis, J. Energetinių Žolinių ir Sumedėjusių Augalų Auginimo Technologijos; Aleksandro Stulginskio Universitetas: Akademija, Lithuania, 2013; 199p. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  43. Kadžiulienė, Ž.; Šarūnaitė, L.; Kryževičienė, A.; Stukonis, V.; Šlepetys, J.; Dabkevičius, Z. Žolinių augalų ir miško želdinių biomasės energinėms reikmėms formavimosi dinamika per pirmuosius penkerius metus. In Agrariniai ir Miškininkystės Mokslai: Naujausi Tyrimų Rezultatai ir Inovatyvūs Sprendimai; Mokslinės Konferencijos Pranešimų Rinkinis, Nr. 2; 2021; pp. 89–91. Available online: https://www.lammc.lt/data/public/uploads/2017/08/konferencijos-pranesimai-2012.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2016). (In Lithuanian)
  44. Vares, V.; Kask, U.; Muiste, P.; Pihu, T.; Soosaar, S. Biokuro Naudotojo Žinynas; Vares, V., Ed.; Žara: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2007; 169p. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  45. Buinevičius, K. Tęršalų susidarymas biokuro degimo metu. Report material. In Proceedings of the Seminar “Biokuro Apskaitos Taisyklių Pakeitimai ir Naujienos 2015 m”, Kaune, Lietuva, 10 February 2015. (In Lithuanian). [Google Scholar]
  46. Buinevičius, K. Biokuro pelenai—Technologiniai ir gamtosauginiai aspektai. Report material. In Proceedings of the Tarptautinė Biomasės Energetikos Konferencija 2014 m, Vilnius, Lietuva, 4 November 2014. (In Lithuanian). [Google Scholar]
  47. Lietuvos Energetikos Institutas, Bioenergy Promotion ir Lietuvos Žemdirbystės Institutas. Kietoji Biomasė. Baltijos Jūros Regiono Bioenergetikos Skatinimo Projektas. 2009. Available online: http://www.lei.lt/_img/_up/File/atvir/bioenerlt/index_files/Bio.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2016). (In Lithuanian).
  48. Gold, V.M.; Gajevskij, N.A.; Golovanova, T.I.; Belonog, N.P.; Gorbaneva, T.B. Fiziologija Rastenij [Φизиoлoгия растений]; Krasnoyarsk, Russia, 2008; 148p, Available online: https://bio.sfu-kras.ru/files/1839_Konspekt_lekcii_Fiziologiya_rastenii.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2023). (In Russian)
  49. Adomaitis, T.R.; Antanaitis, A.; Eitminavičius, L.; Lubytė, J.; Matusevičius, K.; Mažvila, J. Sunkieji Metalai Lietuvos Dirvožemiuose ir Augaluose; Kitos spalvos: Kaunas, Lithuania, 2001; 343p. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  50. Barber, S.A. Biologicheskaja Dostupnost‘ Pitatel‘nyh Veshestv v Pochve: Mechanicheskij Podhod; Chavkin, E.E., Ed.; Agropromizdat: Moscow, Russia, 1988; 376p. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  51. Bergman, W. Farbatlas. Ernahrungsstorungen bei Kulturpflanzen; VEB Gustav Fischer Verlag: Jena, Germany, 1986; 306p. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kabata–Pendias, A.; Pendias, X. Mikroelementy v Pochvah i Rasteniah; Saet, J.E., Ed.; 439 s; M. Mir.: Moscow, Russia, 1989. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  53. Rosikon, K.; Fijalkowski, K.; Kacprzak, M. Phytoremediation Potential of Selected Energetic Plants (Miscanthus giganteus L. and Phalaris arundinacea L.) in Dependence on Fertilization. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. A 2015, 4, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mažvila, J.; Staugaitis, G.; Vaišvila, Z.; Aleknavičius, P.; Juozokas, A.; Mockevičius, R.; Lukšienė, L. Lietuvos Žemės Našumas; Monografija: Akademija, Kėdainiai District, Lithuania, 2011; 280p. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  55. Liang, J.; Yang, Z.; Tang, L.; Zeng, G.; Yu, M.; Li, X.; Wu, H.; Qian, Y.; Li, X.; Luo, Y. Changes in heavy metal mobility and availability from contaminated wetland soil remediated with combined biochar-compost. Chemosphere 2017, 181, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Order of the Minister of the Environment of the Republic of Lithuania. Dėl Lietuvos Respublikos Aplinkos Ministro 2001 m. Birželio 29 d. Įsakymas Nr. 349 “Dėl Normatyvinio Dokumento LAND 20-2001 “Nuotėkų Dumblo Naudojimo Tręšimui Reikalavimai” Patvirtinimo”; (The State Gazette, 2001, Nr. 61-2196); Lietuvos Respublikos Aplinkos Ministras: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2015. (In Lithuanian)
  57. Dudka, S.; Piotrowska, M.; Chlopecka, A. Effect of elevated concentracions of Cd and Zn in soil on spring wheat yield and the metal contens of the plants. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1994, 76, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kurienė, A. Chemija. Trumpas Chemijos Kursas; Gimtinė: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1999; 424p. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  59. Ptašekas, R.; Ptašekas, M. Švinas: Toksikogenezė, Jos Tyrimai; Grybauskas, P., Ed.; Aldorija: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2002; 442p. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  60. WRB. World reference base for soil resources. In World SoilResources Reports No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  61. ISO 11047:1998; Soil Quality Determination of Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Nickel and Zinc Flame and Electro-thermal Atomic Absorption Spectrometric Methods. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/24010.html (accessed on 5 October 2020).
  62. Vrubliauskas, S.; Pedišius, N. Kietojo biokuro standartizavimas ES ir Lietuvoje. Energetika 2005, 1, 16–22. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  63. Miškinis, V.; Galinis, A.; Konstantinavičiūtė, I.; Norvaiša, E.; Tarvydas, D.; Lekavičius, V.; Alėbaitė, I. Kietojo Biokuro Apskaitos Energijos Gamybos Šaltiniuose Taisyklės; Scientific Report; Lithuanian Energy Institute: Kaunas, Lithuania, 2011; 70p, Available online: https://www.lsta.lt/files/studijos/2011%20metu/A-71_LEI_atask_Kietojo%20biokuro%20apskaita.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2023). (In Lithuanian)
  64. LST CEN/TS 14774-2:2007; Solid Biofuels—Methods for the Determination of Moisture Content—Oven Dry Method—Part 2: Total Moisture—Simplified Method. Lithuanian Standards Board: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2007.
  65. LST CEN/TS 15400:2007; Solid Recovered Fuels—Methods for the Determination of Calorific Value. Lithuanian Standards Board: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2007.
  66. Vares, V.; Kask, U.; Muiste, P.; Pihu, T.; Soosaar, S. Manual for Biofuel Users; Tallinn University of Technology: Tallinn, Estonia, 2005; p. 178. [Google Scholar]
  67. Tilvikiene, V.; Kadziuliene, Z.; Liaudanskiene, I.; Zvicevicius, E.; Cerniauskiene, Z.; Cipliene, A.; Raila, A.J.; Baltrusaitis, J. The quality and energy potential of introduced energy crops in northern part of temperate climate zone. Renew. Energy 2020, 151, 887–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. ISO 10390:2005; Soil Quality—Determination of pH. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/40879.html (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  69. Egnér, H.; Riehm, H.; Domingo, W.R. Investigations on soil chemical analysis as a basis of the evaluation of plant nutrient status of soils II. Chemical extraction methods for phosphorus and potassium determination. Lantbr. Ann. 1960, 26, 199–215. [Google Scholar]
  70. LST ISO 11261:1995; Soil Quality—Determination of Total Nitrogen—Modified Kjeldahl Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/19239.html (accessed on 10 August 2021).
  71. ISO 10694:1995; Soil Quality—Determination of Organic and Total Carbon after Dry Combustion (Elementary Analysis). ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/18782.html (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  72. Raudonius, S. Application of statistics in plant and crop research: Important issues. Zemdirb. Agric. 2017, 104, 377–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Clewer, A.G.; Scarisbrick, D.H. Practical Statistics and Experimental Desing for Plant and Crop Science; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2001; 332p. [Google Scholar]
Plants 12 03939 g001
Figure 1. The biomass quality parameters of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., which determine its quality as a solid biofuel (2017 year). * and ** represent the statistically significant impact of the A factor, the B factor, or the interaction of the A and B factors at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n of water content = 3; n of other parameters = 2). Values are the mean ± SE (n of water content = 3; n of other parameters = 2).
Figure 1. The biomass quality parameters of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L., which determine its quality as a solid biofuel (2017 year). * and ** represent the statistically significant impact of the A factor, the B factor, or the interaction of the A and B factors at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n of water content = 3; n of other parameters = 2). Values are the mean ± SE (n of water content = 3; n of other parameters = 2).
Plants 12 03939 g001
Plants 12 03939 g002aPlants 12 03939 g002b
Figure 2. Concentrations of heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni) in the biomass of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. (mg/kg) (2017 year). * and ** represent the statistically significant impact of the A factor, the B factor, or the interaction of the A and B factors at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n = 2). Values are the mean ± SE (n = 2).
Figure 2. Concentrations of heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni) in the biomass of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. (mg/kg) (2017 year). * and ** represent the statistically significant impact of the A factor, the B factor, or the interaction of the A and B factors at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n = 2). Values are the mean ± SE (n = 2).
Plants 12 03939 g002aPlants 12 03939 g002b
Plants 12 03939 g003
Figure 3. Differences in soil pH in the experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. between 2014 and 2017. * represent the statistically significant impact of the A factor, the B factor, or the interaction of the A and B factors at the 0.05 probability level. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n = 3). Values are the mean ± SE (n = 3).
Figure 3. Differences in soil pH in the experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. between 2014 and 2017. * represent the statistically significant impact of the A factor, the B factor, or the interaction of the A and B factors at the 0.05 probability level. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n = 3). Values are the mean ± SE (n = 3).
Plants 12 03939 g003
Plants 12 03939 g004
Figure 4. Differences in the mobile phosphorus (P2O5) and mobile potassium (K2O) concentrations in the experimental soil of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. between 2014 and 2017 (mg/kg). * and ** represent the statistically significant impact of the A factor, the B factor, or the interaction of the A and B factors at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n = 3). Values are the mean ± SE (n = 3).
Figure 4. Differences in the mobile phosphorus (P2O5) and mobile potassium (K2O) concentrations in the experimental soil of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. between 2014 and 2017 (mg/kg). * and ** represent the statistically significant impact of the A factor, the B factor, or the interaction of the A and B factors at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n = 3). Values are the mean ± SE (n = 3).
Plants 12 03939 g004
Plants 12 03939 g005
Figure 5. Differences in the total nitrogen (Ntotal) (%) and in organic carbon (Corg.) (%) concentrations in the experimental soil of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. between 2014 and 2017. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n = 3). Values are the mean ± SE (n = 3).
Figure 5. Differences in the total nitrogen (Ntotal) (%) and in organic carbon (Corg.) (%) concentrations in the experimental soil of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. between 2014 and 2017. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n = 3). Values are the mean ± SE (n = 3).
Plants 12 03939 g005
Plants 12 03939 g006
Figure 6. Differences in the concentrations of heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni) in the soil in the experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. between 2014 and 2017 (mg/kg). * and ** represent the statistically significant impact of the A factor, the B factor, or the interaction of the A and B factors at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n = 3). Values are the mean ± SE (n = 3).
Figure 6. Differences in the concentrations of heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni) in the soil in the experiment of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. between 2014 and 2017 (mg/kg). * and ** represent the statistically significant impact of the A factor, the B factor, or the interaction of the A and B factors at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n = 3). Values are the mean ± SE (n = 3).
Plants 12 03939 g006
Plants 12 03939 g007
Figure 7. Bromopsis inermis Leyss. (variety ‘Galinda’) (a) and Phalaroides arundinacea L. (variety ‘Alaušas’) (b) at the experiment site at the Vokė Branch of the Institute of Agriculture of the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (LAMMC).
Figure 7. Bromopsis inermis Leyss. (variety ‘Galinda’) (a) and Phalaroides arundinacea L. (variety ‘Alaušas’) (b) at the experiment site at the Vokė Branch of the Institute of Agriculture of the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (LAMMC).
Plants 12 03939 g007
Table 1. Biomass dry matter (DM) yield of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. (t/ha) (2015–2017 m).
Table 1. Biomass dry matter (DM) yield of variously fertilized Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. (t/ha) (2015–2017 m).
Fertilizer RateBiomass Yield (DM)Total Biomass Yield (DM) of All Years of the Experiment
201520162017
Bromopsis inermis Leyss. variety ‘Galinda’
Unfertilized0.831.271.783.88
N90P60K902.555.157.1914.89
25 t/ha SSC DM0.951.411.473.83
75 t/ha SSC DM0.981.882.195.05
125 t/ha SSC DM1.132.221.935.27
Average1.292.382.916.59
Phalaroides arundinacea L. variety ‘Alaušas’
Unfertilized0.401.322.113.83
N90P60K901.414.428.7514.58
25 t/ha SSC DM0.471.511.943.92
75 t/ha SSC DM0.441.962.434.83
125 t/ha SSC DM0.632.273.136.03
Average0.672.303.676.64
Ffact.
Factor A67.2 **NI9.88 **NI
Factor B45.48 **46.75 **95.61 **78.85 **
Interaction A × B3.02 *NININI
LSD05
Species of plants (A)0.1550.380.5060.975
Fertilization (B)0.2440.6010.81.542
Interaction (A × B)0.3460.851.1322.181
* and ** represent the statistically significant impact of the A factor, the B factor, or the interaction of the A and B factors at the 0.01 probability level. NI—there is no statistically significant impact. LSD05—least statistically significant difference between variants of the experiment at the 0.05 probability level (n = 4).
Table 2. Scheme of the experiment of Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. (2014–2017).
Table 2. Scheme of the experiment of Bromopsis inermis Leyss. and Phalaroides arundinacea L. (2014–2017).
Bromopsis inermis Bromopsis inermis Phalaroides arundinacea Phalaroides arundinacea
4 mII repetition2 IV repetition1 II repetition5 IV repetition3
4 m4 4 3 1
4 m3 3 1 2
4 m1 2 4 5
4 m5 5 2 4
4 mI repetition3 III repetition4 I repetition4 III repetition3
4 m1 2 3 5
4 m2 5 1 1
4 m5 3 2 2
4 m4 1 5 4
4 m 2 m 4 m 2 m 4 m 2 m 4 m
1—Unfertilized (control); 2—N90P60K90; 3—25 t/ha SSC DM; 4—75 t/ha SSC DM; and 5—125 t/ha SSC DM.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ankuda, J.; Bakšienė, E.; Ražukas, A. Growing of Phalaroides arundinacea L. and Bromopsis inermis Leyss for Biofuel Using Sewage Sludge Compost as a Fertilizer. Plants 2023, 12, 3939. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12233939

AMA Style

Ankuda J, Bakšienė E, Ražukas A. Growing of Phalaroides arundinacea L. and Bromopsis inermis Leyss for Biofuel Using Sewage Sludge Compost as a Fertilizer. Plants. 2023; 12(23):3939. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12233939

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ankuda, Jelena, Eugenija Bakšienė, and Almantas Ražukas. 2023. "Growing of Phalaroides arundinacea L. and Bromopsis inermis Leyss for Biofuel Using Sewage Sludge Compost as a Fertilizer" Plants 12, no. 23: 3939. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12233939

APA Style

Ankuda, J., Bakšienė, E., & Ražukas, A. (2023). Growing of Phalaroides arundinacea L. and Bromopsis inermis Leyss for Biofuel Using Sewage Sludge Compost as a Fertilizer. Plants, 12(23), 3939. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12233939

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop